Amended Complaint/Petition, Scott v. Gate Gourmet, No. 2:20-cv-11033 (C.D. Cal.), Doc. 32 (April 5, 2021)
Summary
First Amended Class Action Complaint in Scott v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv-11033, United States District Court, Central District of California, filed April 5, 2021 as Document 32. Plaintiffs Charles Scott, Brenda McCoy and Dominique Ferdinand sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for Wrongful Termination and violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq. They allege that Gate Gourmet was awarded an initial payroll support of $87,712,299 under the CARES Act and then began to layoff and/or furlough hundreds of employees including Plaintiffs on or about March 28, 2020. They seek to represent a class of former employees working in the state of California who were involved in a layoff after March 27, 2020.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Amended Complaint/Petition, Scott v. Gate Gourmet, No. 2:20-cv-11033 (C.D. Cal.), Doc. 32 (April 5, 2021).”
Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/amended-complaint-petition-scott-v-gate-gourmet-no-2-20-cv-11033-c-d-c-9adc0a1320/
, SHA-256 24ebb8e698a1f4ff7b5ef1cac8d395f2c8366f3f11c0415ba81b95bf9a3c16d7.Full text
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:370
1 GREGORY P. WONG (SBN: 204502)
HEATHER K. COX (SBN: 278898)
2 BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC
6047 Bristol Parkway, Second Floor
3 Culver City, CA 90230
Telephone: (323) 450-2777
4 Email: Heather@barklawfirm.com
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Charles Scott, Brenda McCoy, Dominique
6 Ferdinand, and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
CHARLES SCOTT, an individual; CASE NO.: 2:20-cv-11033
13 BRENDA MCCOY, an individual;
DOMINIQUE FERDINAND, an Assigned to Hon. Christina A. Snyder
14 individual, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
15 COMPLAINT FOR:
Plaintiff,
16 1. Wrongful Termination; and,
vs.
17 2. Violation of California Business
GATE GOURMET, INC., a and Professions Code Sections
18 Delaware Corporation; and DOES 17200, et seq.
1 through 100, inclusive,
19
Defendants.
20
21 UNLIMITED CIVIL
22 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:371
1 Plaintiffs Charles Scott (hereafter “Plaintiff Scott”), Brenda McCoy
2 (hereafter “Plaintiff McCoy”), and Dominique Ferdinand (hereafter “Ferdinand”)
3 (collectively referred as “Plaintiffs”) on behalf of themselves and all others
4 similarly situated, alleges and states as follows:
5 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6 1. This class action is brought pursuant to California Code of Civil
7 Procedure section 382. The monetary damages and restitution sought by Plaintiffs
8 exceed the minimal jurisdiction limits of the California Superior Court and will be
9 established according to proof at trial.
10 2. On October 27, 2020, Plaintiffs originally filed this class action in the
11 Los Angeles Superior Court where the Court has jurisdiction over this action and
12 the matters alleged herein pursuant to the grant of original jurisdiction set forth in
13 Article VI, Section 10 of the California Constitution.
14 3. Further, the California Superior Court has jurisdiction over Defendant,
15 because, upon information and belief, Defendant is either a citizen of California,
16 has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avails
17 itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by
18 this Court consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
19 4. On or about December 4, 2020, Defendant removed the matter to this
20 federal Court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S. Code section 1332 and the
21 Court determined that it had jurisdiction.
22 5. Venue is proper in this Court, because, upon information and belief,
23 the named Defendant resides, transacts business, or has offices in Los Angeles
24 county, and the acts or omissions alleged herein took place in this county.
25 THE PARTIES
26 6. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Charles Scott (“Plaintiff Scott”)
27 was, and is, an individual residing in the City of Long Beach, County of Los
28 Angeles, State of California.
2
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:372
1 7. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Brenda McCoy (“Plaintiff
2 McCoy”) was, and is, an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles, County of
3 Los Angeles, State of California.
4 8. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff Dominique Ferdinand (“Plaintiff
5 Ferdinand”) was, and is, an individual residing in the City of Los Angeles, County
6 of Los Angeles, State of California.
7 9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that at all
8 times relevant herein, Defendant Gate Gourmet, Inc. (hereinafter together with its
9 employees, agents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, “Defendant” or “GATE
10 GOURMET”), was, and is, a Delaware corporation doing business in the County of
11 Los Angeles, State of California.
12 10. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of Defendants
13 named herein as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues these
14 Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege
15 such names and capacities when the same has been ascertained. Plaintiffs are
16 informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that each of the fictitiously named
17 Defendants stated herein bears a legal responsibility to Plaintiffs similar to that of
18 the named Defendant herein.
19 11. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants DOES 1 through 100,
20 inclusive, were the agents, servants, and employees of their Co-Defendants, and in
21 doing the things herein alleged were acting in the scope of their authority as such
22 agents, servants, and employees, and with the permission and consent of their Co-
23 Defendants.
24 12. Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury.
25 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
26 13. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, as well as on behalf of each
27 and all persons similarly situated, and thus, seeks class certification under
28 California Code of Civil Procedure section 382.
3
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:373
1 14. Plaintiff Scott began working for GATE GOURMET in or about 2017
2 as a Chef and was involuntarily laid off on or about March 28, 2020. Plaintiff Scott
3 was offered reinstatement on a temporary basis in January 2021 and was rehired on
4 February 1, 2021 with a fulltime schedule.
5 15. Plaintiff McCoy began working for GATE GOURMET in or about
6 early 2019 in food assembly and was involuntarily laid off on or about March 28,
7 2020. Plaintiff McCoy was offered reinstatement on a temporary basis in January
8 2021.
9 16. Plaintiff Ferdinand began working for GATE GOURMET in or about
10 February 11, 2019 as an equipment handler and was involuntarily laid off on or
11 about March 20, 2020. Plaintiff Ferdinand was offered reinstatement on a
12 temporary basis in January 2021 and was rehired on or about February 1, 2021 with
13 a fulltime schedule.
14 17. In March 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
15 Act, 15 U.S.C. section 9001, et seq. (hereinafter the “CARES Act”) was signed into
16 law. The CARES Act provided significant federal funding to support multiple
17 industries affected by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (hereinafter “COVID-19”)
18 pandemic, including the airline industry. The CARES Act was negotiated and
19 signed after other relief bills signed in early March 2020 were inadequate to fully
20 address the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
21 18. The stated purpose and public policy behind the CARES Act is to
22 address the profound economic disruption arising from the unprecedented COVID-
23 19 global pandemic and Congress intended to reduce the amount of unemployment
24 that would otherwise flow from the impact of COVID-19 on the economy, and to
25 protect vulnerable workers.
26 19. According to the United States Department of Treasure website
27 regarding the CARES Act, the CARES Act is for “over $2 trillion economic relief
28 package” with the purpose of “protecting the American people from the public
4
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:374
1 health and economic impacts of COVID-19” which includes “direct economic
2 assistance for American workers, families, and small businesses, and preserve jobs
3 for our American industries.” (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares) The
4 United States Department of Treasure website regarding Section 4112 of the
5 CARES Acts states the purpose of the Act is to “provides payroll support to
6 passenger air carriers, cargo air carriers, and certain contractors for the continuation
7 of payment of employee wages, salaries, and benefits.”
8 (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/cares/preserving-jobs-for-american-
9 industry/payroll-support-program-payments)
10 20. GATE GOURMET is a provider of airline catering and provisioning
11 services for airlines and so qualified as an “airline catering services” under the
12 CARES Act, Title IV, Subtitle B, section 4111.
13 21. On or about April 3, 2020, GATE GOURMET, with its parent
14 company gategroup US Holding Inc., submitted an application for payroll support
15 pursuant to Division A, Title VI, Subtitle B of the CARES Act. In that application,
16 GATE GOURMET was required to identify the number of average employees in
17 2019 and the involuntary reductions after March 1, 2020.
18 22. GATE GOURMET was awarded an initial payroll support of
19 $87,712,299 from the federal government under the CARES Act. Plaintiffs are
20 informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the total anticipated payroll
21 support is estimated at $171,424,598 for GATE GOURMET, the second highest
22 amount anticipated for contractors though the payroll support program under the
23 CARES Act.
24 23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that, as
25 part of the application to receive federal funds under the CARES Act, GATE
26 GOURMET was required to make several assurances including that, pursuant to
27 sections 4113(b)(1)(A) and 4114 of the CARES Act, Defendant would use such
28 payments exclusively for the continuation of employee wages, salaries, and
5
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 6 of 16 Page ID #:375
1 benefits; and refrain from conducting involuntary layoffs or furloughs until
2 September 30, 2020.
3 24. On or about March 28, 2020 and continuing on through the present,
4 GATE GOURMET began to layoff and/or furlough hundreds of employees
5 including Plaintiffs after the CARES Act had been signed into law. GATE
6 GOURMET was aware and put on notice that federal funds would be made
7 available to them with the purpose of protecting workers and helping to retain
8 employees. GATE GOURMET’S actions are in direct contravention to the purpose
9 behind the financial bail-out GATE GOURMET applied for and received under the
10 CARES Act.
11 25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that
12 GATE GOURMET employed on average approximately 10,000 employees in 2019.
13 Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that GATE
14 GOURMET performed involuntary layoffs of at least 1,500 employees in between
15 March 1, 2020 and September 30, 2020, which is approximately 15% of its
16 workforce.
17 26. These layoffs have and will continue to cause irreparable harm to
18 GATE GOURMET’S affected employees, including eliminating employer
19 sponsored health insurance during a pandemic and during a time when
20 unemployment is at an all-time high.
21 27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that in or
22 about January 2021, GATE GOURMET offered a return to employment on a
23 temporary basis to the involuntarily terminated employees.
24 CLASS ALLEGATIONS
25 28. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, as well as on behalf of each
26 and all persons similarly situated, and thus, seeks class certification under
27 California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and/or Federal Rule of Civil
28 Procedure 23.
6
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 7 of 16 Page ID #:376
1 29. All claims alleged herein arise under California law for which
2 Plaintiffs seek relief authorized under California law.
3 30. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all of Defendant’s former
4 employees working in the state of California who were involved in a layoff after
5 March 27, 2020, when it would become clear that Congress intended to implement
6 a bill which would provide money for the airline industry, including providing
7 federal money to companies in need to continue to employ their employees.
8 31. The members of the proposed Class are so numerous that joinder of all
9 members would be unfeasible and not practicable. The membership of the entire
10 Class is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time; however, the class is estimated to be
11 greater than one hundred (100) individuals and the identity of the class membership
12 is readily ascertainable by inspection of Defendant’s payroll and personnel records.
13 32. Plaintiffs are, and have been, at all material times, members of the
14 Class. Plaintiffs are qualified to, and will, fairly and adequately represent the
15 interests of each class member with whom there is a shared, well-defined,
16 community of interests. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of all class members’ claims
17 as they arise out of the same course of conduct and are predicated on the same
18 violations of law.
19 33. There are questions of law and fact as to the class which predominate
20 over questions affecting only individual members including, without limitation:
21 (a) Whether Defendant’s layoff and/or furlough of hundreds of
22 employees goes against public policy after Defendant knew or should have known
23 that federal money was and/or would be made available for the purpose of retaining
24 employees;
25 (b) Whether Defendant’s conduct was willful or reckless.; and
26 (c) The appropriate amount of damages, restitution, and/or
27 monetary penalties resulting from Defendant’s violations of public policy.
28 34. The Court should permit this action to be maintained as a class action
7
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 8 of 16 Page ID #:377
1 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and/or FRCP 23,
2 because:
3 (a) Questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate
4 over any questions affecting individual members;
5 (b) The Class Action mechanism is superior to any other available
6 method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the claims of the Class Members;
7 (c) The Class Members are so numerous that it is impractical to
8 bring all members of the Class before the Court;
9 (d) Plaintiffs, and the Class Members, will not be able to obtain
10 effective and economic legal redress unless the action is maintained as a class
11 action;
12 (e) There is a community of interest in obtaining appropriate legal
13 and equitable relief for the statutory violations, and in obtaining adequate
14 compensation for the damages and injuries for which Defendant is responsible in an
15 amount sufficient to adequately compensate the members of the Class for the
16 injuries sustained;
17 (f) Without Class Certification, the prosecution of separate actions
18 by individual members of the Class would create a risk of:
19 (i) Inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to
20 individual members of the Class which would establish incompatible standards of
21 conduct for Defendant; and/or,
22 (ii) Adjudications with respect to the individual members
23 which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other members
24 not parties to the adjudications, or would substantially impair or impede their ability
25 to protect their interests, including, but not limited to, the potential for exhausting
26 the funds available from those parties who are, or may be, responsible for
27 Defendant; and
28 (g) Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
8
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 9 of 16 Page ID #:378
1 applicable to the Class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate with
2 respect to the Class as a whole.
3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy – Against all Defendants)
5 35. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporates herein by reference the above
6 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
7 36. Plaintiffs and Class Members claim that they were discharged from
8 employment on or about March 28, 2020, after the passage of the CARES Act and
9 have not been rehired by GATE GOURMET until January 2021, if at all which
10 occurred well after GATE GOURMET received federal funding for the purpose of
11 retaining employees. This lay off is and was in violation of public policy in the
12 GATE GOURMET applied for and accepted federal money and defied the purpose
13 of the money by proceeding with a layoff of hundreds of employees. GATE
14 GOURMET essentially relied on the federal government to both support the
15 company with the promise to retain employees, and then also support the terminated
16 employees until GATE GOURMET deemed it economically viable to rehire the
17 terminated employees.
18 37. California courts first recognized a public policy exception to the at-
19 will employment doctrine in Tameny v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 167
20 and reaffirmed its commitment to that principle on several occasions including in
21 Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654; Shoemaker v. Myers (1990)
22 52 Cal.3d 1, and Rojo v. Kliger, (1990) 52 Cal.3d 65.
23 38. In Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., supra, 47 Cal.3d 654, the court
24 determined that this cause of action “ ‘reflects a duty imposed by law upon all
25 employers in order to implement the fundamental public policies [of the state]․ As
26 such, a wrongful discharge suit exhibits the classic elements of a tort cause of
27 action.’ ” (Id. at p. 668, quoting Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d at p. 176.).
28
9
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 10 of 16 Page ID #:379
1 39. As stated in Foley v. Interactive Data Corp., supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 669,
2 the policy “inures to the benefit of the public at large rather than to a particular
3 employer or employee.” “Public policy” refers to the principle that “no citizen can
4 lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the
5 public good …” Gantt v. Sentry Ins., 1 Cal.4th 1083,1094 (1992) (overruled on
6 other grounds by Green v. Ralee Eng. Co., 19 Cal.4th 66 (1998)).
7 40. In Rojo v. Kliger, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 90, the court rejected
8 defendant’s argument that “Tameny claims should be limited to situations where, as
9 a condition of employment, the employer “coerces” an employee to commit an act
10 that violates public policy, or “restrains” an employee from exercising a
11 fundamental right, privilege or obligation. … Although decided in the factual
12 contexts of coercion (Tameny, supra, 27 Cal.3d 167, 164 Cal.Rptr. 839, 610 P.2d
13 1330) and restraint (Foley, supra, 47 Cal.3d 654, 254 Cal.Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373),
14 neither Tameny nor Foley excludes wrongful discharge claims based solely on sex
15 discrimination or sexual harassment. To the contrary, the cases strongly imply that
16 an action for wrongful discharge will lie when, as here, the basis of the discharge
17 contravenes a fundamental public policy.”
18 41. Plaintiffs allege that the “basis of the discharge” in this case
19 contravenes a fundamental public policy, because by applying for and receiving
20 federal money from the CARES Act, GATE GOURMET had a duty to continue to
21 employ its workforce, especially in a pandemic where access to employer
22 sponsored health insurance for individuals and families was and is essential for the
23 general public to help control the spread of COVID-19.
24 42. Further, GATE GOURMET essentially shed its costs of its workforce
25 onto the government by significantly reducing its workforce while also asking for
26 and receiving government money to support that workforce. Then, at a time
27 convenient for the company and well after applying for and receiving federal
28 money to support that workforce, turns around and re-offers employment to those
10
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 11 of 16 Page ID #:380
1 former employees, most of which surviving with the assistance of government
2 money through unemployment payments. These actions are against public policy.
3 43. Plaintiffs and the class members are informed and believe, and based
4 thereon allege that as a direct and proximate result of the acts alleged herein,
5 Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer economic detriment and monetary
6 damages, including, but not limited to, loss of wages and benefits in an amount to
7 be determined at trial.
8 44. Plaintiffs and the class members are informed and believe and based
9 thereon allege, that as a further direct and proximate result of the acts alleged
10 herein, Plaintiffs and the class members have suffered and continue to suffer
11 substantial embarrassment, extreme and severe humiliation, mental anguish,
12 emotional and physical distress, pain and suffering, and has been generally
13 damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.
14 45. Plaintiffs and the class members are informed and believe, and based
15 thereon allege, that Defendant willfully engaged in the conduct alleged herein with
16 malice, fraud, and oppression, without excuse or justification, and with the specific
17 intent to injure Plaintiffs and the class members for an improper and evil motive
18 which constitutes a malicious and conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ and the class
19 members rights. By reason thereof, Plaintiffs and the class members are entitled to
20 an award of exemplary and punitive damages against Defendant sufficient to punish
21 and deter Defendant from engaging in such conduct in the future in an amount to be
22 determined at trial.
23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
24 (Violation of California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 Et Seq.
25 – Against All Defendants)
26 46. Plaintiffs refer to and incorporates herein by reference the above
27 paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
28
11
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 12 of 16 Page ID #:381
1 47. California Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.,
2 prohibits acts of unfair competition which means and includes “any unlawful,
3 unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.”
4 48. Standing - Restitution: Plaintiffs allege in this action that GATE
5 GOURMET unlawfully laid off and/or furloughed Plaintiffs and the putative class
6 even as it applied for and accepted funding under the CARES Act under the guise
7 of retaining its employees. GATE GOURMET received over $171 million under
8 the CARES Act for the express objective of keeping its employees working, which
9 it purposefully failed to do with respect to Plaintiffs and the member of the putative
10 class. Plaintiffs have suffered injury in fact and are entitled to restitution in the
11 form of lost backpay as a result of GATE GOURMET’S actions. See Cortez v.
12 Purolator Air Filtration Products, Co., 23 Cal.4th 163, 178 (2000) (“[B]ackpay
13 may be a form of restitution” for purposes of the UCL); NLRB v. Bridgeway
14 Oldsmobile, Inc., 933 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1991) (Backpay awarded as restitution
15 where employer engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of National Labor
16 Relations Act); Hartless v. Clorox, Co., 2007 WL 3245260, *8 (C.D. Cal., Nov. 2,
17 2007) (Restitution available to “actual direct victim” of alleged UCL violations).
18 49. Standing – Injunctive Relief: Plaintiffs further allege in this action that
19 GATE GOURMET has engaged in a pattern and practice of laying off, furloughing,
20 and recalling employees (including Plaintiffs) - essentially treating its employees as
21 an on-demand/ per diem workforce as it sees fit, all in contravention of the public
22 policy and states purposes of the CARES Act. Plaintiffs allege such conduct is
23 ongoing and continues to this date and, unless enjoined, GATE GOURMET could
24 foreseeably reinstitute layoffs and furloughs in the event the Coronavirus pandemic
25 surges yet again.
26 50. Within the four (4) years preceding the filing of this action, Defendant
27 has engaged in unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business acts and/or practices by
28 engaging in the conduct set forth above. These business acts and practices violated
12
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:382
1 numerous provisions of the law, including, but not limited to, California public
2 policy. Plaintiff reserves the right to identify additional violations of law as further
3 investigation warrants.
4 51. Defendant’s acts and practices, as detailed above, constitute acts of
5 unfair competition. Defendant has engaged in an unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent
6 business act and/or practices within the meaning of California Business and
7 Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.
8 52. By reason of Defendant’s fraudulent, deceptive, unfair, unlawful, and
9 other wrongful conduct, as alleged herein, Defendant has violated California
10 Business and Professions Code sections 17200, et seq., by consummating an
11 unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practice designed to deprive Plaintiffs, the
12 members of the Class, and members of the general public of their legal rights.
13 53. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiffs, class members, and members of
14 the general public have suffered, and continue to suffer, damages, and are therefore
15 entitled to the relief available under California Business and Professions Code
16 sections 17200, et seq., including, but not limited to, restitution, disgorgement, and
17 injunctive relief.
18 54. As such, Plaintiffs, class members, and the general public, seeks a
19 temporary, preliminary, and/or permanent order from this Court prohibiting
20 Defendant from continuing to engage in the unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent
21 business acts or practices set forth in this Complaint, in addition to disgorgement
22 and restitution by Defendant to all persons with a vested interest therein who have
23 been adversely affected by the practices at issue.
24 PRAYER FOR DAMAGES
25 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class members, and each of them, pray for
26 judgment against Defendants, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of
27 them, jointly and severally, as follows:
28
13
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 14 of 16 Page ID #:383
1 ON THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Wrongful Termination)
3 1. For lost wages for Plaintiffs and the class members and benefits and
4 other monetary relief in an amount to be determined at trial;
5 2. For prejudgment interest on lost wages and benefits:
6 3. For compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
7 4. For general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
8 5. For an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant from continuing to
9 engage in any further acts of unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent
10 business acts and/or practices;
11 6. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial; and
12 7. For attorneys’ fees: and
13 8. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, fair, and
14 proper.
15 ON THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
16 (Unfair Business Practice)
17 1. For restitution of all profits and gains resulting from Defendant’s
18 unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent business acts and/or practices to
19 Plaintiffs, class members, and all persons with a vested interest therein
20 who have been adversely affected by the practices at issue;
21 2. For an injunction permanently enjoining Defendant from continuing to
22 engage in any further acts of unfair, unlawful, and/or fraudulent
23 business acts and/or practices;
24 3. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and for costs of suit incurred herein;
25 and,
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
14
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 15 of 16 Page ID #:384
1 4. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, fair, and
2 proper.
3
4 Respectfully Submitted,
DATED: April 5, 2021
5 BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC
6
/s/ Heather K. Cox
7 _____________________________
8 Gregory P. Wong
Heather K. Cox
9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Charles Scott,
10 Brenda McCoy, Dominique Ferdinand,
behalf of themselves and all others
11 similarly situated
12
13
14
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
15
Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury as provided in Rule 38(a) of the
16
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
17
Respectfully Submitted,
18 DATED: April 5, 2021
BARKHORDARIAN LAW FIRM, PLC
19
20 /s/ Heather K. Cox
_____________________________
21
Gregory P. Wong
22 Heather K. Cox
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Charles Scott,
23
Brenda McCoy, Dominique Ferdinand,
24 behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated
25
26
27
28
15
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Case 2:20-cv-11033-CAS-JPR Document 32 Filed 04/05/21 Page 16 of 16 Page ID #:385
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
(CCP §§ 1013(A) AND 2015.5)
2 State of California,
Case No.: 2:20-cv-11033
3 County of Los Angeles
4 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and am
not a party to the within action; my business address is 6047 Bristol Parkway, Culver City, CA 90230.
5
On April 5, 2021, I served the foregoing document described as:
6
First Amended Class Action Complaint
7
on the interested parties in this action by placing same in a sealed envelope, as follows:
8
Jill A. Porcaro
9 Jporcaro@seyfarth.com
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
2029 Century Park East Suite 3500
10 Los Angeles, CA 90067-302
11
(BY MAIL) – I caused such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the
12 United States mail in Culver City, California.
13 I am “readily familiar” with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for
mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day
14 with postage thereon fully prepaid at Costa Mesa, California, in the ordinary course of business.
I am fully aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal
15 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing
an affidavit.
16
(BY E-MAIL) – Based on a Court order or an agreement by the parties to accept service by e-
mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents described above to be sent by e-mail to
17 the persons at the e-mail addresses listed above. I did not receive, within a reasonable amount of
time after transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
18 unsuccessful.
19 (BY FACSIMILE) – I caused the above described document(s) to be transmitted to the offices
of the interested parties at the facsimile number(s) indicated on the attached Service List and the
20 activity report(s) generated by facsimile number (310) 215.3416 indicating on all pages that they
were transmitted.
21
(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) – I caused such envelope(s) to be delivered by hand to Defendant.
22
(STATE) – I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct.
23
(FEDERAL) – I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
24 whose direction the service was made.
25 /s/ Evelyn Monreal
EVELYN MONREAL
26
27
28
1
POS
File and source
- File
- 32-amended-complaint-petition.pdf
- Size
- 844,872 bytes
- SHA-256
- 24ebb8e698a1f4ff7b5ef1cac8d395f2c8366f3f11c0415ba81b95bf9a3c16d7
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com